Beaufort County Council approves flyover contract 9-2

An engineer's rendering of the future roadway connecting Bluffton Parkway to U.S. 278 shows the two flyover columns where they connect with the eastbound and westbound lanes at the foot of the Hilton Head Island bridge.

A last-minute opposition campaign to an elevated connection between Bluffton Parkway and the Hilton Head Island bridge wasn’t enough to sway the Beaufort County Council, which voted 9-2 on Monday to approve the $45 million project’s contracts.

The effort that heated up last week with a negative ad and a reversal of support from the Hilton Head Town Council played out again Monday as half of the 14 county residents offering comment in a packed Bluffton Library warned that a bad decision lasts forever.

Lining up to offer support, though, were other Hilton Head residents who argued the same furor accompanied the introduction of the now-accepted Cross Island Parkway in the mid-1990s.

Hanging in the balance was a low-bid contract of $36.7 million approaching a deadline in days and $15 million in grant support that a S.C. Department of Transportation commissioner said the county would certainly lose if it passed on a shovel-ready project in works for years.

But with the passage of the construction contract with Kentucky’s R.R. Dawson and a $3.9 million management agreement with South Carolina’s F&ME, an idea first pitched to the Beaufort Transportation Advisory Group in March 2007 will go forward.

The plan calls for a mile-long elevated roadway stretching from Bluffton Parkway at Buckingham Plantation Drive over the marsh just east of The Gatherings. The “flyover” ramps connecting this roadway to the eastbound and westbound lanes of the Hilton Head bridge proved to be the controversial aspect, with many island residents worrying they’ll tarnish the view for motorists. The current budget accounts for upwards of $1 million in aesthetic improvements to the ramps.

County Councilman Stu Rodman, who represents part of Hilton Head, has pushed for an alternative that retains the roadway but replaces the flyover with an at-grade intersection and a traffic light regulating westbound entrys to Bluffton Parkway but leaving through traffic unimpeded. The plan was supported by traffic counts and review provided by a Florida engineering firm that he didn’t name until Friday at a subcommittee meeting.

The county’s engineering department, using current population growth projections, told the subcommittee the continuous flow provided by a flyover will better ease congestion largely attributed to left-turn movements on U.S. 278 and better accommodate future growth as well.

In addition, Rodman’s plan would take at least three years to reach the same stage, the department concluded.

Tom Hatfield of Hilton Head disputed that claim and the argument that opposition consists solely of a vocal minority, pointing to a straw poll indicating about 95 percent of respondents stand against the flyover. He and others emphasized the decision will reverberate for generations and argued the 2006 sales tax referendum that endorsed 10 projects didn’t make specific mention of a flyover, though it does reference some kind of connection.

“There is never a wrong time to stop a bad idea,” he said. “This double flyover idea meets that description.”

Proponents countered that businesses have planned investments around the flyover, that a signalized intersection disrupts the free flow of traffic, that the plan’s roots date back more than five years ago and failure to act now could jeopardize future state funding.

“I would suggest to you our ability to obtain road money in Beaufort County will be impaired for years to come if we reverse course now,” said Hilton Head Mayor Drew Laughlin.

Rodman maintained his numbers show the flyover plan exceeds bridge capacity by 44 percent while growth on the island itself remains relatively static.

“It’s a strange, unintended consequence of some number driving a design that potentially we don’t need and could end up being an embarrassment,” he said.

Freshly inducted Bluffton-area Councilwoman Cynthia Bensch joined Rodman in voting against the flyover contract, saying after the meeting that she wanted more time to study Rodman’s alternative despite the loss of state money.

“I just think we need to provide them a little more time to study, just to let people in opposition know (we pursued all options),” she said. “Being new on Council, I regret that (Hilton Head residents) weren’t informed properly.”

Rob McFee, county engineering chief, said he can’t estimate how quickly the project will get started. He previously said it will take at least two years to complete.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Stu Rodman for Mayor.
He is right, this WILL be an embarrassment for our area and it is NOT needed.
Cynthia Bensch should also be commended for her clear-eyed approach of wanting more time to study the situation. Stu Rodman's plan for an alternative route should have been given more time to be studied, and we also could have used more time to study the projected growth in our area because current figures are based on old data and are overblown.
-People aren't buying 2nd homes here like they used to. Mostly due to the lackluster economy and the current tax configuration which penalizes 2nd home owners.
-The Island is pretty much built out and hasn't had significant growth in years. There just isn't any more room to grow there.
-Right now, Bluffton isn't really growing either and with the state of our economy (and the fact Obama was re-elected) I don't see another growth spurt or housing boom coming anytime soon. Besides that, there really isn't a lot of room to grow in Bluffton either. At least not enough to warrant a Detroit-style flyover bridge met to alleviate traffic.
This unneeded, unwanted, butt-ugly flyover concrete monstrosity will become a huge embarrassment for our area and a HUGE waste of money. This is millions of dollars that could be used on many other projects of more importance, more need, and more demand.

I love how the proponents of the flyover monstrosity say that "the people voted for this". Actually, the people voted for a PACKAGE of road improvement projects - many of which were needed - but the flyover was purposely thrown into the package because the County knew it would never pass on it's own. The same thing happened to the taxpayers when it came to our schools. We were given a "package" of schools that were badly needed, but we also had to include building (and paying for) a new high school NOB that was NOT needed just to get what we wanted. Why? Because we didn't have a choice!
Is this any way to conduct business with the taxpayers? Why do we stand for this coming from our elected morons?
Most of the people I've spoken with regarding the flyover said they never thought it would happen because of lack of funding, but mainly due to lack of support. They felt the simple fact that, since the majority of the people didn't want this project, the negativity concerning the flyover would be heard and understood by their elected officials. We witnessed this with the last minute, cover my butt, symbolic vote by the sorry members of HHI council a couple days ago. They knew their constituents were against the flyover, but they also knew that their vote would mean nothing towards cancelling the project.
-Folks..........Never trust greedy politicians to "understand" anything. Especially when people are waving money in front of their face.

What a disaster........

We should all remember the 9 people that voted for this come election time.
And I would hope that the good people of HHI won't need to be reminded what stance the Mayor took on this project.

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.